DISCLAIMER
The information on this website is for EDUCATIONAL purposes only.  Any experimentation with these ideas is done at your own risk.  Pulse charging batteries with capacitor discharges can be very dangerous, and may cause the batteries to explode, sending strong acid solutions flying across the room and/or starting a fire.  The circuit diagrams published on these pages have been tested and are considered "safe" for testing, as long as they are duplicated exactly, with no changes what-so-ever.  Never the less, defective batteries may still present dangers to the experimenter when attached to these circuits.  You are responsible for the condition of your batteries!

BTI, Energenx, Inc. and John Bedini assume no responsibility or liability for loss or damages caused by any third party due to experimentation with or adaptation of information on this website.

This page may not be reproduced unless you have my permission, I will enforce it.

I have set up this page so you may review what has been going on in the past three years.

We are talking only about the mono pole motor.

In the beginning of this conquest, I posted the plans to Keelynet on the "school girl motor". I know that several of you on Keelynet tried very hard to build this motor, but I said in the beginning, just build the motor the way I said to do it. In short, do not change anything until you have something working!!!! There is a learning process here for those who built this motor the way I said to do it (about ten people). I did not say to hook meters all over the machine, I just said make it run first and then move to the next step. The work on this little model was very important to get an understanding of what the energy was and how it worked, and how you would trigger it in the end. Also at the same time, Tom Bearden went out of his way to write what my process was with my permission and E-Mailed it to Jerry Decker at Keelynet. What ever happened to that paper, I don't know, but if you did not understand the paper you did not understand the motor/ energizer.  All along Keelynet was given the information.

The US Patent office made me change the name of this device to fit into a category of motor generators. I was very lucky that they let me keep the mono pole part of it. The next fight with the Patent Office was the timing of the machine and how this device charged it's batteries, but we worked this out (with a few word changes by them).

I said to Jerry Decker and others in the beginning that their were three patents, even if in my own mind it was one machine that the patent office would never allow. I had already moved so far forward in the technology on the radiant energizers that I was into the solid state inverted circuit machines. The next step was to get the mechanical machines to be verified by some  "expert PHD's". As it turned out all of these people were just "money suckers" and did not live up to their word even when the machine was performing in front of their own eyes. (The problem was the test equipment would not read the energy flow to the batteries even though they were charging). My "coke formula" was kept out of the patent by the Patent examiner changing words in the text . (new speak). To over come this I broke the machine into three patents, which cost my company three times the amount.

Then there were those who decided to make kits of my motor and state it was only a recovery circuit without even asking if they could sell my patented device. They made junk and a few bucks ,I made nothing, and to beat it all they did not even understand what it was they were selling. The truth of the matter is, no one has ever seen what the energy is so how could they be "experts" in the field? There were also others that changed everything around to call it their own, but failed every time. There were those that thought they could just put junk together and say it did not work, they failed also. There were those that copied everything I did and sold book's of it for some enormous amount, "sic". Then there those that copied my internet pages and posted them to other pages without even asking for permission. Our company has spent six figures on all our working models and patents in the last two years. Patent law says that you can build one device for yourself, for your own use. This does not mean steal the device and sell it for your own gain.

I must state at this time that this is why my E-Mail at john1 does not work anymore. I'm no longer answering questions when the answers are here. Any E-Mail that comes to our company, if I do not know who you are, it gets trashed along with the spam.

If I took all the energy, in watts-seconds, that I put into my system during a 30 minute run, and then run my load from the secondary battery at rate of 65 watts per second, my system beats this challenge by 2900 %. I'm not the only one doing this now. I have it "dead man fused" so it will never be lost again. Yes, I have people that are trustworthy who want to learn this technology; and they are learning at a very fast rate. It's like learning two different languages.

 

DR. Peter Lindemann's Motors

Open Letter to KeelyNet

Dear Jerry,

As you know, I have been working with John Bedini for the last two and a half years. When I first started to visit John at his shop, I thought that I knew a lot about the "free energy" field, and that John and I were equally qualified in the field. In my early interactions with John, he was always open and generous in his sharing of knowledge, but I always had this sense of a perceived "undertone" of superiority, that sort of pissed me off. I learned to overlook it. At the end of the summer of 2001, John nearly insisted that I come down to his shop, so he could help me build a working model of my own to test. So, in mid-September of 2001 (just after the 9/11 event) I spent a week in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho and went to John’s shop every day. He let me design the motor, then, he let me know why what I designed wouldn’t work. We eventually worked out a design together that was the first of the "big wheel" motors. After we built mine, John built a second one, and the pictures of his motor have been on the internet for over a year. Here is the picture of mine.

Bedini Motor/Energizer

May 21- 2002 US Patent 6,392,370

bedinimotor1.jpg (57578 bytes)

Over the last two years, both John and I have used these motors as "test stands" to test various methods of storing and applying the radiant energy back to the second battery. We have used capacitors as large as 330,000uf and as small as 10,000uf. We have switched the capacitor discharge mechanically, as well as used bipolar transistors, power mosfets, and SCR’s. Last year, I rebuilt my motor with 3 smaller discs. This gave me an opportunity to test a number of other parameters. I have never reported these test results to anyone but John, until now.

3discmotor1.jpg (32977 bytes)

With magnets on either side of the coil, I could make the machine act more like a generator, or more like a motor, or more like a transformer, depending on the set-up. After exhaustive tests, here are the results:

  1. When the machine is configured to function as a generator, it slows down when delivering power, it charges the capacitor poorly, and it draws more power from the source battery.
  2. When the machine is configured to function as a transformer, again, it slows down when delivering power, charges the capacitor to the voltage set by the windings ratio, and draws more power from the source battery.
  3. But, when both the transformer action and generator action are suppressed, the motor torque is maximized, the speed is maximized, the input power is minimized, and the capacitor charges quickly to voltages up to 30 times the input voltage on a one-to-one windings ratio.

John was always friendly and patient as I made every mistake imaginable. When I was done, what worked is what John had said in the first place! I learned over the years of experimentation that John and I were in general agreement about the theoretical behavior of the energy, but that John was LIGHT-YEARS beyond me in understanding how to engineer machines and circuits that actually made the theory WORK!

Tesla’s US Patent #695,958 clearly shows radiant energy circuits designed to run INDUCTIVE loads. Gray’s US Patent #4,595,975 shows radiant energy, again, driving INDUCTIVE loads. John Bedini has now moved the science of radiant energy one step farther by discovering how radiant energy can be captured in CHEMICAL loads, such as the electrolyte of a battery!

When radiant energy is properly applied to a battery electrolyte, the battery undergoes a series of changes that restores its potential AND lowers its internal impedance. This restores the battery to the condition generally referred to as "charged." What is so astonishing is that it does this without the need to force the electrons from the positive plate back to the negative plate through an external circuit. Using John’s simple, patented inductively coupled radiant oscillators, and his patented switching techniques, the amount of electricity it takes to produce the radiant energy is very low, and the effect of the radiant energy on the receiving battery is very high. The source battery and the secondary battery being charged are NEVER directly connected to each other. There is no "closed loop!"

John and I have run tests with prototype, solid-state, radiant chargers that draw ONE WATT (12 volts @ 80ma) from the source battery and can charge a 7 amp-hour gel-cell battery from 10.5 volts (fully discharged) up to 14 volts in under one hour (3600 joules). This newly charged battery is then discharged by being connected to a sine-wave inverter and running a 100 watt light bulb for 40 minutes (240,000 joules). After discharge, it can be charged back to full again by the one watt charger in about an hour. The COP of the system is very high. The apparent efficiency of this test is COP>60! Even John and I question the math when it is this high. Never the less, we have run dozens of these tests with the COP>20. Different batteries behave differently with different charger configurations.

I have witnessed scores of tests that demonstrate COP>1 systems that were designed and built by John. I have independently re-run dozens of these tests back at my home with my own test models. John’s systems work, it’s as simple as that.

Jerry, I am telling you this because I think you should recognize by now that there have been MULTIPLE, independent verifications of John’s discoveries, and that it is TRUE, and VERY GOOD NEWS! It has taken a huge effort to understand how the energy behaves in these circuits, and there is still a great deal to learn. You now have the reports from Harlan, Roamer, me and others. We have made the effort to learn what John has been reporting and succeeded. Others may have failed, but we have not failed. I am reminded of the fact that learned professors were filling chalk boards with equations "proving" that heavier-than-air flight was impossible more than two years AFTER the Wright Brothers’ flight at Kitty Hawk. In that scenario, the score turned out: Bike Mechanics – 1, College Professors – 0.

Please post this to the E-Scribe List.

Sincerely,

Peter Lindemann

3discmotor2.JPG (39965 bytes)

 

More coming

Wayne sends a massage to Keelynet  He has built several devices!!!

The interesting thing is that as soon as John B. re-defines ZPE (or whatever you want to call the energy we are all immersed in), everybody wants to throw him under the bus as if he is taking back all he has said and experienced in the past 30 years. If a few of the so called experimenters would scrap their computers so that there would be less bull crap and more actual hands on building a lot of people would get their eyes opened if they would simply follow the drawing, it's not rocket science, and build the thing without changing things then saying Hey look what I designed! Good grief, Tesla has built half or more of the stuff that I see people claiming that they "designed"! Bedini's stuff works. I've built several of them and they are cool as all get out. I've had this message wrote for some time now but I'm finally fed up with the crap that John B. puts up with. I can guarantee it that if all the Tim H's of the world would come clean they would admit that they learned a lot if not most of their stuff from John. The truth is that the majority of the pencil pushin couch warming morons wouldn't know OU if it bit them in the hind end! We need to get on with it. Build one of John's dual battery units, (and build it like you're proud of it because it will work. If you build it out of hockey pucks, horse crap and wood it will work like it looks). The advantage of all the photos that John has posted is something I didn't have when I built mine. Quit trying to oppress the ones that are trying, and get a system built to kick the grid in the butt instead of wasting peoples time reading lousy messages like this one! Wayne

"Carrigan, Ken" wrote: > HI, > Was wondering what the 'bottom line' is on this device. IS IT overunity or not? > 12v 1.2aH battery is pretty Large to just freewheel a small flywheel, and provide pulses of 120mA with .1sec duration. Without charging the battery, it should be able to run for months at a time. So what's up? Is it overunity? Or just a small flywheel rotating around pulsing a current to a lightbulb? Also, lighting a 120VAC 7W bulb with 12 volts is not all surprising. They make inverters to do this. Also inductive booster power supplies use this methodology to convert low voltage to high voltages with more then 80% efficiency. > > So what is so great about this? I forgot.. > v/r > Ken Carrigan

Ken you just need to do the work, if I remember you and I had a discussion at which time you told me, I'm an engineer. I need to figure all the math out first, maybe I will go to the dump and see if I can find a battery!!! This is not science Ken so I stopped talking to you about anything, you just need to pull the mind block out of your thinking. All this is happening right in front of your face and you can't remember. Are you one of those "McChatters" to just chat.

                                       Roamer sends an E-mail

Capacitor current is not charging the batteries. I've seen this up close.
Approximately 9ma average is passing from my test motor output from the
capacitor to the output battery. Nothing more.

From a 10.8v start, it should take more than 20 days to get a full charge on
ONE of these batteries. With 20ah worth of these batteries it should be 80
days. Connected in parallel, I started charging them on 12/5 and they are
now at peak charge, outgassing. There is no accounting for this charging via
standard current flow models.

I think John's greatest point, if I may be so bold as to make an assumption,
is that everyone is playing armchair theorist when they should just be
building and testing his FREE DESIGN PLANS to produce an C.O.P. >1 system.

It takes a little tinkering (for me anyway) to get it working right. But, it
DOES work, regardless of whatever alternate theories are bandied about.

Just my 2-cents....
Roamer

 

Hi all, I've been following Bedini for several years now, so lately K-net has been VERY interesting... I tend to agree with Ken here. With all due respect to Bedini, it's obviously not as easy as slapping a few magnets on a wheel and wiring it up. For instance, Bedini mentioned that something I and many others would normally consider totally innocuous (attaching meters) is considered not building the motor "exactly" as he describes. Plus, the effect doesn't show up on meters! First I've heard about that! Once all the potential variables (exact coil dimensions, air gaps etc. ad nausuem) are covered, it will be a lot easier for those who can't sit at the feet of the master to get results. Perhaps Harlan or Lindman can give us a super-detailed description to help maximize future replications. I think now I also understand why he's appeared short tempered in the past, it seems to me it's more a result of frustration in not being able to get across the required information! Understandable, considering we barely have the vocabulary invented to describe it. Thanks to John for providing all this latest information, Jerry for the forum and everybody else for participating and sharing results. Best regards, Dave Narby

OK Dave , Ken let's make this simple for you and everybody.

US Patent# 6,545,444,and US2003/0117111A1 now granted.

Their is one thing we should get straight right now, the dimensions of the coil are not important. The resistance of the coil is not important, the windings are not important, the magnets are not important. None of these things mean anything.  All of you are wasting your good earned money on neo- magnets, dime store magnets will do just fine stacked together. There is no secret to this machine, it's the process and the switching that's important!!!!! I have never counted one winding when I was making these motors with Peter,  I'm not saying one turn of wire will work because it won't, again what is important is, THE PROCESS AND HOW YOU COLLECT IT AND SWITCH IT. Why are you all thinking that it makes a difference in how the coil is wound, here is a number for you 500 turns number 23 tri-filer wound wire, see no step up no step down, just 1- to -1 ,welding rod for the core, roller-skate wheel, all north poles out, 2n3055 TO-3 case Junk but better, Do not use TIP 3055 it's just real junk , 330 ohms base resistor, 1N914 diode, hooked up the way I said. that's it. This makes your mechanical inductive coupled oscillator no big deal. By the way you are right about the terminology, we are babies at this to, just trying to (DEAD MAN FUSE IT), Nature does not care what the coil looks like. OH forgot the 1kv diode bridge on the third winding, and a 10Uf 500 volt cap, be careful you will fly across the room. I said I broke the machine into three patents, third patent, use the bottom half of switcher only. Do we all get it now?, By the way this is a limited machine to just study the radiant current to the battery. Thomas Bearden has defined it!!! "Everything in nature is simple this is the most complicated to the human mind, let's keep it simple".

Most of the problems with what you are doing is, the magnets, using a bolt for the core is not right, I said cut welding rod  and  you are not selecting the correct resistor for the base current for this mechanical oscillator. Save your money you do not want to use NEO-MAGNETS, just use radio shack cheap magnets!!!!

WHY?

This motor energizer is a mechanical oscillator whose speed depends on the lowest amount of current you can put into the coil. If you apply too much current, you cause the transistor to cross conduct (known as cross conduction current). When you do this, the semiconductor over heats, because the current to the transistor stays on and the mechanical oscillator runs slow.You cause the same thing to happen by using NEO-MAGNETS. Once the mechanical oscillator is running , YOU MUST ADJUST THE BASE RESISTOR TO THE HIGHEST VALUE that gives you the highest speed with the lowest current draw. The more magnets you get around the wheel the better the collection process will be.  The magnets can not be too close together and must be spaced evenly around the wheel. You can find the right magnets at Radio Shack or a hardware store.

For the coil, just use an old solder roll or a bobbin you get wire on, cut and fill the center hole with .030 welding rod . This works really well.

An Answer to Ken C

Good, I got your attention, Keelynet in the past year has turned into something that's like a crazy man's thinking, no work is being done it's just stuff you can read in the science news papers, this what I mean by "McChatters" this does not just apply to you it applies to all of us!! I think there are some very bright people on Keelynet and I don't mind giving my time to help get something done.  At least Ken your on the right track, and are doing the research to understand what it is, and you have the key's in your last post to unlock the door. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand potentials in nature.You kill the potential you loose the energy. The Keys have always been on My pages it just takes you to re-read them, the light is already on inside your head.

John

                    An Answer about the battery measurements!!!!

Peter in great detail has told you all how the measurements were done. When you hook the battery to a sine-wave inverter and put a load on it that's real power. not only did we use gravity meters, we use capacity analyzers.These                            instruments tell you what is in the battery.   

mono-pole11.jpg (47424 bytes)

lookrad1.jpg (18808 bytes)

I have captured this energy that is transferred to the batteries on a digital Tek scope, the bandwidth of this scope is over 500Mhz, it is at 50 volts per division, it is the best picture I could get at this time.

 These models were built only to understand the process. 
To date,there are no "Realists" who understand the Radiant process.    

To Date,there are no "experts" since they have never seen this energy.
      
All this work is property of BTI/energenx systems and may not be
  reproduced or copied off to other pages without my permission.
Copyrigt 2003 John Bedini

Ken C,

Thank you very much for the answer you gave. You are on the track it won't be long and you will be doing this. I must admit that you have turned on the light. This is real good work you have done, wish you were close to us here. The case has a miniature re-gauging motor US patent 6,392,370, I have posted the mono-pole motor stuff with permission, I'm asking if I can post a simple hook up for the re-gaugeing motor in the case.  We are working right now to charge 1000 Ah batteries, The company will not let me post the inverted circuits until the 5 patents are excepted, you can understand. I did not mean to come down hard on MP but I have seen these batteries explode and I don't want anybody hurt. Your doing Great work in figuring this all out!!!!!!

John

 

 

Bob Paddock :

<snip> So to be more precise, in the quantum mechanical vacuum you do not have observable charged mass, but you do have virtual charged mass. So you can have a virtual E-field in the vacuum, which is just a potential gradient without the presence of observable charged mass particles. [29] <snip> 29. Recall again Feynman's statement. In the vacuum, one just has a force-field-free gradient in the potential until one places an observable charge in there for the potential gradient to couple to. With such charged particle(s) in place, the local   interaction and coupling of the potential gradient with the charged particle(s) produces (and in fact constitutes) an electromagnetic force field. <snip> "Toward a New Electromagnetics, Part 4"; see page 19, slide 38. <snip> Excite the "vacuum", which in turn excites atoms of the battery. Open the "switch", the excited atoms give up some electrons that we turn in to conventional energy... > Back EMF. Any basic text book on  inductance gives the formula for the how much voltage you will get out.  It is what the back EMF is interacting with is what needs to be considered, not the voltage of the conventional back EMF spike. > HIGHEST voltage output, with the LOWEST oscillator input current. In other > words, you may want a system/oscillator that has a very high Q which will > give you very very small current and very very high voltages. High dV/dT? Seems a infinitely high voltage in zero time (no current) would be sure to excite lots of thing. >current travels faster outside the wire then electrons, In the virtual particle flux around the wires. For those who like to get off on theory instead of real hardware ... Aharnov-Bohm, and the Galina's patents probably fit in as well...

Great work Ken and Bob.

I must keep this simple

Let's look at it this way, If we go back to where Tesla said that when the switch was thrown in the DC power station the operator was killed by some unknown! Tesla studies this , He reproduces it in his lab where he says that a great stinging pain was felt by him ( the gaseous fluid, not controllable passes through everything). He finds out that just before the current carriers catch up and enters the highly resistive inductor (by sharp reparation rate) their is a radiant pulse that causes the wire to emit a glow that takes place, then the current catches up and it goes away (normal positive EM power). Then the current is cut off and a back EMF develops. These are two different things! In my tests I have found that the radiant only appears to tranverse the coil when voltage appears, in other words this radiant pulse is there when the voltage potential leads the switching, then the current makes it's way through the  resistave coil. But now the switch is off and the back EMF shows up only reverse at 1/3 the radient pulse, so in a sence you could say this all takes place unidirectional in millisecond of time.

                             Gabriel Kron 

We quote: "...the missing concept of "open-paths" (the dual of "closed-paths") was discovered, in which currents could be made to flow in branches that lie between any set of two nodes. (Previously — following Maxwell — engineers tied all of their open-paths to a single datum point, the 'ground'). That discovery of open-paths established a second rectangular transformation matrix... which created 'lamellar' currents..." "A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author's years-long search."

        Tom Bearden, on the process in the batteries.
                 www.icehouse.net/john34/index101.htm